Moderator: NecronLord
Drake is probably more prolific than either. He writes about two books a year and has done so since the eighties. He writes in multiple genres, although he's best known for his military sci-fi.Connor MacLeod wrote:David Weber. Much as I like the series. I think they grossly overrate him. And John Ringo. I've become more of a David Drake fan, though he seems to be much less trumpeted (or is it prolific) than the other two...
I agree with you on Weber. Every single book of his boils down to "soldiers are good and upstanding and noble (except the political appointees). Politicians are evil and corrupt (except the ones who used to be soldiers)."Connor MacLeod wrote:David Weber. Much as I like the series. I think they grossly overrate him. And John Ringo. I've become more of a David Drake fan, though he seems to be much less trumpeted (or is it prolific) than the other two...
I can see Cryptonomicon, if you're not already a fan it's going to be somewhat irritating, but Snow Crash is pretty easy to get into. How far did you get?Dartzap wrote:I cannot, despite multiple attempts, get into either Snow Crash and Cryptonomicon. I read anything and everything, but those two books continue to beat me.Bob the Gunslinger wrote:
I'm also surprised that neither Neal Stephenson nor Kim Stanley Robinson has made it into this thread yet. Since I haven't been able to force myself to finish any of their books, I don't think it would be fair of me to rate them.
Three chaptersHow far did you get?
His writing style just grates for some reason. The lack of U's in some words also annoys me for no apparent reason as well.
That's "The Wanderer" by Fritz Leiber. And I wonder how old you were when you read it. Because it appears that most of the fucking plot was lost on you. The Aliens were zipping around in a spaceship the size of a planet, and they were on the run from just about anybody else. Damaging our world was just a side effect of their appearance, and all they wanted to do was warn us, not harm us. Not that any of that matters in the end...Zixinus wrote:I can't remember the name.
There was a book about interstellar hippies that ripped our moon apart. They had massive technologies, and one of the aliens fucked one of the protagonists. The alien looked like a catwoman.
Also, by ripping the moon apart, it caused massive tidal waves of enormous destruction.
There was one scene where two soldiers also fucked, but because they were dying and had no way out. It was quite sad in a way.
The book was quite obvious portrayer of hippies. It also had an astronomer that told its audience that he indeed visited other planets.
The book made me hate hippies. Well, at least the irresponcible kind. Destroying a whole living world when there are a dozen of other planets worth destroying and nobody would care about is immoral to say the least.
Half way through the series I was rooting for the Republic of Haven because I appreciate the underdog to Manticore's sitting around waiting for the next super-duper-uber missile/EW system. "Deus Ex" isn't something Mr. Weber is afraid of.Connor MacLeod wrote:David Weber. Much as I like the series. I think they grossly overrate him.
Sure Haven is bigger. It's also beaten like a red headed stepchild for most of the first half dozen novels while Manticore gets:Batman wrote:How, exactly, is the Republic of Haven the underdog in the series? If anything that's what Manticore would be given they are the single system power opposing the much larger Republic (hah!) of Haven.
Not that I disagree with the people who say Weber's stuff is overrated. The HH series is (used to be, anyway) a fun read but it's nothing more than (mostly) well done space opera.
Size is all Haven has. The little guy isn't the underdog if he walks into a knife fight with an Uzi.Batman wrote:How, exactly, is the Republic of Haven the underdog in the series? If anything that's what Manticore would be given they are the single system power opposing the much larger Republic (hah!) of Haven.
I'm sorry, this isn't entirely accurate. The Republic of Haven hasFalkenhayn wrote:Size is all Haven has. The little guy isn't the underdog if he walks into a knife fight with an Uzi.Batman wrote:How, exactly, is the Republic of Haven the underdog in the series? If anything that's what Manticore would be given they are the single system power opposing the much larger Republic (hah!) of Haven.
Aha! Someone who agrees with me!Gullible Jones wrote:I'm not sure about "everything", but can I second Oryx and Crake on charges of moronic assertions, luddism, lack of understanding of human nature, and grotesquely blatant attempts to manipulate the reader?Ryan Thunder wrote:Anything written by Margaret Atwood. Blech.
The reason they did it. They didn't do it out of spite of humanity or anything like that, they did it because that's how they work: they take whatever they have at hand, use it up and always move on.What's 'hippie' about ripping a moon apart?
And doing so, doomed our planet. I recall more of the book, but not the part about they warning us of anything.Damaging our world was just a side effect of their appearance, and all they wanted to do was warn us, not harm us.
Personally after reading the Wikipedia page on it my thought was that it sounded more like somebody's messed up paranoid psychosexual fantasy than an exploration of what a Christian theocracy would actually be like. Though I've never actually read the book, so it's possible that I'm wrong.Tsyroc wrote:It certainly has a creepy and disturbing society based on some men in power latching on to one fucked up part of the Bible but to me it falls apart when it tries to explain how this came to be. I also couldn't quite accept that enough of America would roll over for forcible change in government by a group who makes Pat Robertson seem tame.
That's probably a good description of what's actually effective about the book. Certainly the main charcter's sexual life is fucked up almost completely under the control of others.Junghalli wrote:Personally after reading the Wikipedia page on it my thought was that it sounded more like somebody's messed up paranoid psychosexual fantasy than an exploration of what a Christian theocracy would actually be like. Though I've never actually read the book, so it's possible that I'm wrong.
Because I was trying to forget I ever read it.Darth Wong wrote:How can you have a thread about massively overrated sci-fi novels without mentioning Aldous Huxley's so-called "classic" work of speculative literature, Brave New World?
It's pompous, racist, reactionary, Luddite garbage.Aenigma wrote:Why, what's wrong with it?Darth Wong wrote:How can you have a thread about massively overrated sci-fi novels without mentioning Aldous Huxley's so-called "classic" work of speculative literature, Brave New World?
